1. Scientific findings suggest vaccines to be safe. 2. Science is constantly changing. 3. Most people are doing what they believe is best for their children.

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. It's inarguable that scientific findings point to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. It's impossible to disprove everything the anti-vax crowd alleges as it's a shifting goalpost and doing studies endangers lives. So, the best scientific data course at the moment is to vaccinate children.

There's no guarantee in 200 years or whatever that this won't change and it's almost a guarantee that vaccines themselves will change over the course of time as they can be improved. In other words, they're not perfect.

We vaccinate our kids because it's probably the right thing to do. But, I think people need to lay off the holier than thou attitude that just because it is scientifically likely the correct thing to do that nothing bad can happen and alternate hypotheses are [expletive] stoopid1!

This applies to everything in general. Until something becomes a scientific law, it's not absolute and is subject to change. Yes, we should use science to better humanity and unfortunately there is a large group of people that just flat out ignores science. But just because science suggests something does not mean it's an absolute certainty beyond reproach and people that question it are stupid.

All that said, vaccinate your damn kids, [blue]you dumb asses[/blue]

Mostly I agree with you except that you're letting the anti vaxxers -most of them anyway- off easy bc they are not using your reasoning but some dumb study or bs illogic.

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 amPosts: 22868Location: Thinking of the Children

lukethedrifter wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

Just a couple things that I hope people keep in mind.

1. Scientific findings suggest vaccines to be safe. 2. Science is constantly changing. 3. Most people are doing what they believe is best for their children.

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. It's inarguable that scientific findings point to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. It's impossible to disprove everything the anti-vax crowd alleges as it's a shifting goalpost and doing studies endangers lives. So, the best scientific data course at the moment is to vaccinate children.

There's no guarantee in 200 years or whatever that this won't change and it's almost a guarantee that vaccines themselves will change over the course of time as they can be improved. In other words, they're not perfect.

We vaccinate our kids because it's probably the right thing to do. But, I think people need to lay off the holier than thou attitude that just because it is scientifically likely the correct thing to do that nothing bad can happen and alternate hypotheses are [expletive] stoopid1!

This applies to everything in general. Until something becomes a scientific law, it's not absolute and is subject to change. Yes, we should use science to better humanity and unfortunately there is a large group of people that just flat out ignores science. But just because science suggests something does not mean it's an absolute certainty beyond reproach and people that question it are stupid.

All that said, vaccinate your damn kids, [blue]you dumb asses[/blue]

Mostly I agree with you except that you're letting the anti vaxxers -most of them anyway- off easy bc they are not using your reasoning but some dumb study or bs illogic.

Right. I don't mean to give anti-science crowds a pass. And, I disagree with anyone that is using anecdotal data in lieu of scientific data which seems to be a large % of the anti-vax crowd.

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. It's inarguable that scientific findings point to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. It's impossible to disprove everything the anti-vax crowd alleges as it's a shifting goalpost and doing studies endangers lives. So, the best scientific data course at the moment is to vaccinate children.

There's no guarantee in 200 years or whatever that this won't change and it's almost a guarantee that vaccines themselves will change over the course of time as they can be improved. In other words, they're not perfect.

We vaccinate our kids because it's probably the right thing to do. But, I think people need to lay off the holier than thou attitude that just because it is scientifically likely the correct thing to do that nothing bad can happen and alternate hypotheses are [expletive] stoopid1!

This applies to everything in general. Until something becomes a scientific law, it's not absolute and is subject to change. Yes, we should use science to better humanity and unfortunately there is a large group of people that just flat out ignores science. But just because science suggests something does not mean it's an absolute certainty beyond reproach and people that question it are stupid.

Well sure, but not vaccinating your kids because of unsupported worries puts your neighbors at risk, so it's not a exactly something to just shrug at. People who spread baseless fears about vaccines will cause more people to not vaccinate making the problem worse, so they shouldn't do that, especially if they are in high profile positions like the Presidency.

And you can apply extreme skepticism to pretty much everything to justify bad choices: Maybe power lines really do cause cancer. Sure, evidence doesn't support this, but we don't really know because science is never final, so let's stop building them, etc.

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 amPosts: 22868Location: Thinking of the Children

Arthur Dent wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. It's inarguable that scientific findings point to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. It's impossible to disprove everything the anti-vax crowd alleges as it's a shifting goalpost and doing studies endangers lives. So, the best scientific data course at the moment is to vaccinate children.

There's no guarantee in 200 years or whatever that this won't change and it's almost a guarantee that vaccines themselves will change over the course of time as they can be improved. In other words, they're not perfect.

We vaccinate our kids because it's probably the right thing to do. But, I think people need to lay off the holier than thou attitude that just because it is scientifically likely the correct thing to do that nothing bad can happen and alternate hypotheses are [expletive] stoopid1!

This applies to everything in general. Until something becomes a scientific law, it's not absolute and is subject to change. Yes, we should use science to better humanity and unfortunately there is a large group of people that just flat out ignores science. But just because science suggests something does not mean it's an absolute certainty beyond reproach and people that question it are stupid.

Well sure, but not vaccinating your kids because of unsupported worries puts your neighbors at risk, so it's not a exactly something to just shrug at. People who spread baseless fears about vaccines will cause more people to not vaccinate making the problem worse, so they shouldn't do that, especially if they are in high profile positions like the Presidency.

And you can apply extreme skepticism to pretty much everything to justify bad choices: Maybe power lines really do cause cancer. Sure, evidence doesn't support this, but we don't really know because science is never final, so let's stop building them, etc.

And, using that extreme skepticism is not necessarily the correct thing to do. I'm not trying to argue that it is. But, I'm leery of attacking people that are undoubtedly trying to do what is best for their family.

The POTUS is an idiot and not qualified to talk about it and the social implications of him taking the anti-vax side are troubling, but I'm not really commenting on that. He's an idiot and shouldn't do it. That's the extent of that.

What the solution is, I don't know. Mandatory vaccinations to me seems like an overreach of governmental powers even if the science is in their corner. At the same time, exposing the most susceptible among us to preventable, deadly diseases may be even worse. I don't have any answers; I just see it as more of a grey* issue than I think most do and have an empathy most don't for anti-vaxxers.

I'm leery of attacking people that are undoubtedly trying to do what is best for their family.

It's one thing when it's only affecting your family - like going vegan or home schooling. It's another to endanger a child who isn't making the choice and another still, that you concede, when it comes to endangering the whole community.

Quote:

Mandatory vaccinations to me seems like an overreach of governmental powers even if the science is in their corner. At the same time, exposing the most susceptible among us to preventable, deadly diseases may be even worse.

I mean, there really isn't a may be about it. Children dying of measles is objectively worse than living with autism. So even granting the premise of anti-vaxxers sounds ridiculous. Hell, I bet vaccines increase the rate of cancer...because people live long enough to get it at 80 instead of dying of measles at 12.

I can't say I'd oppose mandatory vaccinations but I haven't heard that recommended, either. I do think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to require vaccinations to attend public schools, use licensed child care facilities and, hell, maybe to use government health care benefits.

In non-outbreak conditions, I think policies like mandatory vaccines to attend school where you can get an exception, but it's a bit of a pain to do so, make sense.

And of course I don't think most parents rejecting recommended vaccines are being deliberately evil-- they are largely responding to the information in their environment and trying to make the best choices they can even if they are misguided. Which is why it's important that people not spread nonsense and debunked fears about vaccines. There are plenty of people doing this who should know better and even more who do so for bad reasons (my child was diagnosed with autism after being vaccinated, therefor the vaccine caused the autism). And I think an under-discussed reason is that parents think it's ok not to take the (small) risk of vaccinating their kids is because other families will protect them by vaccinating theirs, a violation of the social contract, which I think is a small form of evil.

I can't say I'd oppose mandatory vaccinations but I haven't heard that recommended, either. I do think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to require vaccinations to attend public schools, use licensed child care facilities and, hell, maybe to use government health care benefits.

I can't say I'd oppose mandatory vaccinations but I haven't heard that recommended, either. I do think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to require vaccinations to attend public schools, use licensed child care facilities and, hell, maybe to use government health care benefits.

Interesting thought. What would your argument be?

Your right to not vaccinate ends where it affects others; kids who don't get vaccinated are more likely to be sick; why should I pay for your choice? The "hell" was supposed to kind of transition that in to more philosophical/exaggerated statement but I was thinking more about things like taxes on alcohol and tobacco or even the soda taxes in NYC that people get upset about. I guess we could just tax organic food more and you'd get a large swath of the anti-vaxx crowd but taking something away would be easier.

There's enough nuance to that kind of policy that doctors and lawyers could try to spend a year crafting how to work it appropriately and fail. Is it only medicare/medicaid dependents? How do you handle pre-vaccination aged children? Do you limit it to treatment of measles and mumps of un-vaccinated children? Is it a requirement to add the dependent to your government employee insurance only? Do you simply raise the premiums on employees who do not vaccinate?

My defense of any such policy would be pretty light hearted in the face of moderately reasoned rebuttal. I believe there are numerous cases of prosecution in the case of children being endangered because of religious or personal beliefs. I'd say choosing to not vaccinate for reasons AD listed are worse and I'd rather encourage a good behavior (vaccinations) than punish a bad one (not vaccinating).

What would stop, also, a private health insurance group from refusing to cover a child who had not been vaccinated? Like, ok parents, you want to add your kids to your plan, please provide verification of the following vaccinations. Oh, you don't have them? Jeez, we are very sorry but your child does not really fit our actuarial tables and we are not able to cover the child.

I don't have kids and so this is not a thing I spend a lot of time thinking about. But maybe private health insurance groups do this already.